It has been eight years since the Supreme Court recognized an individual right to keep guns at home for self-defense in District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down parts of an exceptionally strict local law. Since then, the justices have said almost nothing about the scope of that right.

It's just not much of a right under the current workings of the law.

I got that phrase "current workings of the law" from Loretta Lynch, the Attorney General, who was on TV yesterday talking about denying access to guns to people the government has put on its list. As I said yesterday:

The current workings of the law... what a phrase! What does it mean? I, a law professor, think it means: We'll meet the standards the courts impose, but we're part of the process of defining those standards, and if we can get a bill through Congress, we expect the courts to interpret the Due Process and the Second Amendment in a suitably responsive manner.

And now, today, we see more evidence that — whatever fans of the Second Amendment may think or hope it means — in court, it doesn't mean very much. But Heller did win his case, so it means something.

Hillary knows all this of course. That's why she's able to be completely cagey about whether she's out to destroy the Second Amendment, depending on whom she's talking to.

Big Brother never sleeps. And he has a whole squad of cheerleaders in the media, the government, and even on this blog, to cheer him on. Today Instapundit has a post starting with "I'm so old I remember when liberals used to say . . ." (He's using "liberal" in the current a-historical bastardized sense: i.e., as a synonym for "tax-happy, coercion-addicted, power-tripping government sniffer and State fellator.") Me, I'm so old I remember when, after the Patriot Act, was instituted, "liberals" used to quote that Ben Franklin adage about people who would trade a little liberty for a little security deserving neither. Nowadays, "liberals" are sounding more like that bogus Hitler law-and-order quote they used to repeat during the Nixon Era.

It is Trump who frames almost every one of his comments about guns in terms of "the Second Amendment."

I have the feeling that Trump doesn't know much about guns (although he seems to have stated that he has, or once had, and New York concealed pistol permit).

Professor Althouse is right; any simple invocation of "the Second Amendment" is not enough to carry the day. But Trump is the guy whose arguments seem to begin and end that way. And, Trump is of course the same guy who supported an assault weapons ban. And more recently lied about that:

Lynch upholds the laws given by gods from the twilight zone. Unfortunately, the constitution is, actually, a social construct subject to interpretation, reinterpretation, and executive discretion. Ironically, the unpredictability of a selective religion undermines the purported prime directive of the left to secure stable environments.

It has been eight years since the Supreme Court recognized an individual right to keep guns at home for self-defense in District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down parts of an exceptionally strict local law. Since then, the justices have said almost nothing about the scope of that right.

and 7 years later, you still can't purchase a gun in DC, nor move it or ammo to your home without first obtaining a permit from the Police Chief, which in theory she says she grants, but in practice won't.

We need to enforce the laws we have. Liberals want to make laws to regulate just about anything and everything, but they don't want to punish criminals for breaking them. I know this is an oversimplification, but it's also true.

Chuck I'm at a loss on this one, man. What are you talking about? Trump frames things in terms of the 2A, so does Clinton...so does pretty much everyone, in one way or another, eventually. The anti-2A people say they want "common sense regulation" and claim that those regulations are ok within the 2A.Pro-gun people say the kinds of regulation the anti-gun people want are forbidden by the 2A. Pretty much everyone includes the 2A in their framing of the issue.

You argue that Trump begins and ends arguments over guns by referring to the 2A, and then immediately after that point out that Trump at one time favored an assault weapons ban...which seemingly contradicts your implied argument that Trump is some sort of 2A absolutist.

I'm really not sure what you're trying to say, here, Chuck, other than "I, Chuck, think Trump is bad." I mean, I get that, sure.

From the NYTimes article: Last October, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York, upheld the ban almost entirely. It acknowledged that the affected weapons were in common use and assumed their possession was protected by the Second Amendment. But the appeals court ruled that the Connecticut law passed constitutional muster. The law was “specifically targeted to prevent mass shootings like that in Newtown, in which the shooter used a semiautomatic assault weapon,” Judge José A. Cabranes wrote for the court.

“Plaintiffs complain that mass shootings are ‘particularly rare events’ and thus, even if successful, the legislation will have a ‘minimal impact’ on most violent crime.“That may be so,” Judge Cabranes continued. “But gun‐control legislation ‘need not strike at all evils at the same time’ to be constitutional.”

So, the 2nd Circuit says the 2A exists and that under the 2A the types of firearms this ban targets are legal to possess, and then further agrees that the ban itself is unlikely to serve the purpose the lawmakers give for it...but nevertheless declare that the ban is constitutional.

Ok. What level of scrutiny is that, again? Can it be much more than rational basis, and isn't that too low for a basic/fundamental right? I haven't read the opinion so I'm going on what this article says, but that sure seems wrong.

I mean, of course, "wrong" in the sense that it does not comport with my understanding of how the Constitution is supposed to work in America. Which, you know, looking at the laws we have and actions of our government...I guess it's fair to say maybe I just have this whole modern "USA" thing wrong in my mind, after all.

A long time ago the local sportscar club decided to update its constitution and bylaws and then somehow got into defining what constituted a "sportscar," and especially when a Chevy Corvair would be considered to qualify. The members got up to requiring it to be a Monza with stickshift and twin rearview fender mirrors, and I asked: "Are you people even listening to yourselves?" And they thought a little more and decided that a "sportscar" really was any car the owner thought was fun to drive and there really was no need to define the term as a requirement for membership in the club.

I think this blog post is a bit disingenuous. Unless I am missing something, SCOTUS simply denied cert, which does not provide any insight regarding whether or not this type of legislation would be permitted under the Constitution. The denial of certiorari creates no binding precedent, and the Connecticut ban could still be successfully challenged.

By the way, the "why can't we have sensible regulations" calls you always hear should be answered by reference to stuff like this. Prof. Althouse is right to say "in case you think the 2A would stop a ban," and people who favor gun rights know it. We fight so hard and accept no compromises on many issues exactly because we understand that we CANNOT count on any Court to stand up for our rights. If we believed the Court would protect our fundamental right to possess and bear arms to protect ourselves we could probably have all sorts of small compromises, minor restrictions, etc. We could go along and get along, no problem!

But we can't, because we know these 2 things:1. The anti-gun people really do want a full ban--they really do want to be more like their idea of European nations where people are forbidden to own guns. They sometimes say that's not their ultimate goal, but we know better. 2. We cannot count on any Court to prevent the anti-gun people from getting their way. If our 2A rights are going to be protected, we have to do the protecting ourselves. That means fighting for our rights all the time--fighting hard against any restrictions, resisting any push for increased regulation, etc.

Why are the pro-2A people so unwilling to compromise? Because we know you don't want a compromise, you want to win, and because we know the Court will not help us so we're on our own.

“The American people once had their liberties; they had them all; but apparently they could not rest o’nights until they had turned them over to a prehensile crew of professional politicians."--Albert Jay Nock

I believe this is the "impingement" case where the decision was premised on the state only banning some types of semiautomatic weapons but allowing other types of semiautomatic weapons. That's where the assault weapon definition comes in, which wasn't declared unconstitutional while it was in force nationwide.

Banning all semiautomatic weapons would be of questionable constitutionality.

As for DC and Heller, in Massachusetts we have something called a firearms ID card which lets you buy a weapon and keep it in your home, but not carry it around. Carry licenses get easier to get the farther you get from the cities out into the suburbs and exurbs. Is that a violation of the second amendment? Equal protection?

What I am saying about Trump is that he is a particularly clumsy defender of gun rights.

He's got a history with gun laws that ought to earn him the severest scrutiny from the NRA.

And we never hear Trump talk about the details of gun laws. I think that is because he's no good at it. He screws up the details, just like liberals lacking in any serious gun knowledge and experience get the details wrong in most gun law debates. Trump is a country club guy from Manhattan and Palm Beach. He's not an upland bird hunter like Dick Cheney; or a waterfowler like the late Justice Scalia. Trump is a poseur (or not even!) with guns, like John Kerry.

Trump is saying too much and too little, when he asserts that Hillary Clinton would do away with the Second Amendment. Hillary Clinton will do no such thing.

Hillary Clinton will probably nominate one of more Associate Justices to the Supreme Court, who might constrain or reverse the holdings in Heller and MacDonald. But that is not "doing away with the Second Amendment."

I happen to think that you need to be able to state the opposing side's argument with charity and precision, in order to win the debate. I don't think Trump can do that. Not convincingly. Because he's too inexperienced, too ignorant about guns, and too stupid to get help in making the political debate.

yoobee said.... The denial of certiorari creates no binding precedent, and the Connecticut ban could still be successfully challenged

It could still be, possibly, in the future, sure. But that's always true of every issue, yoobee--the Court could rule any damn way on any damn issue at some point in the future. The denial of cert. in this case means the 2d Cir's ruling stands, and that means that from today until some future Court takes up the issue that's the law and the reality for people in NY, CT, and VA.

Whether this type of legislation MIGHT be found to be unconstitutional at some distant point in the future is somewhat beside the point--by denying cert. the Court has allowed this legislation to stand for the time being. We can infer from that action (denying cert.) that the Court does not find that reality (leaving the ban in place) to be sufficiently troublesome to correct right now (which would involve hearing the case)...so I agree with the Professor that we can, in fact, get quite a bit of useful information out of the Court's action (deciding not to hear the case).

I could kick myself for not buying stocks in gun makers when Barack became president. He has been the greatest gun salesman of all times and the stockholders of SWHC, for instance, should be giddy that this fool has been yammering away on his high horse. Have a look at the 5 year chart of SWHC: $5 to 25$ in five years. Nice work there, Mr. President.

What do we call people who constantly try to skirt the law? What's that phrase again? It means the same thing as "career criminal", but it's another phrase I can't quite pull out of my brain..... oh yea, I got it now: "Democrat politician". Yea, that's it. Don't we put them in jail? No, they run for President and often win.

Trump's a clumsy defender of most of his positions, Chuck. That's not news to anyone and that's not really what you said in your first comment...but if that's your point, fine.

Do you think the current Administration states its political opponents' arguments with clarity (unless you really did mean charity) and precision? My view is that President Obama almost always creates and defeats strawmen ("there are some who say...") and is as quicker to ascribe bad faith to his opponents as any President in my life has been. Nevertheless Obama is a terrifically good communicator and exceedingly persuasive, or so we're continually told by our Media.

Anyway, Chuck, if a President Clinton appoints Justices who overturn Heller and allow severe restrictions firearm ownership, that WILL count as "doing away with the 2A" to an awful lot of us. I understand this gets to a philosophical argument pretty quickly, but if we take the state of the nation right now (where most people in most states can purchase, own, and bear arms of the type people on the Left would love to ban) as "having the 2A" as understood by most people then doing away with that state of existence (by allowing massive restrictions on those freedoms currently enjoyed by millions) would be, to many of us "doing away with the 2A."

The Professor's post encourages people to consider that the 2A may not provide the kind of protection (against bans) they assume it would. That's a good point, and one worth thinking about. Your post, Chuck, seems to leave open the possibility that the Court (as populated by a President Clinton, for example) might find all sorts of bans Constitutional by ruling that the 2A doesn't do very much to guarantee gun rights...and that to you that action wouldn't count as "doing away with the 2A" since there would still, nominally, be a 2A (just one one that did anything). That's not a very good point--clearly we all know that the Court can decide what the Constitution means, so the real argument is not over what they COULD do but over what actions of theirs would be seen as valid/accepted as keeping with the Constitution as we as Americans understand and accept it.

I think this blog post is a bit disingenuous. Unless I am missing something, SCOTUS simply denied cert, which does not provide any insight regarding whether or not this type of legislation would be permitted under the Constitution. The denial of certiorari creates no binding precedent, and the Connecticut ban could still be successfully challenged.

*************

Ah, but you miss the point. The MSM is deliberately using the terms "upholds" and "upheld" to convey the impression that the Supremes are agreeing with the Connecticut law. IOW it's just another way of astro-turfing the "gun control" issue.

The Constitution only means what a majority of supreme court justices say it means, actual text notwithstanding. Whatever reservations I may have about Trump, the idea of Hillary getting to fill the current and future supreme court vacancies is enough to get me to vote for him.

Amending the Constitution through the SCOTUS is dangerous. Amending the constitutional meaning of the 2nd Amendment through the SCOTUS is worse than dangerous -- it might lead to rebellion.

The question I'd ask for all the folks who want to end the individual right to keep and bear arms -- how many people are you willing to confiscate the 3 million AR-15 or the 300 million total firearms in the United States. I mean, I'm pretty moderate about most things but I'm not turning in my guns. My guess is that there is a large number of firearm owners who are a far more committed than I am.

Larry J said...Whatever reservations I may have about Trump, the idea of Hillary getting to fill the current and future supreme court vacancies is enough to get me to vote for him.

But, Larry J, Chuck just assured you that if Hillary Clinton appoints some Justices who will constrain or reverse the Heller and McDonald rulings that won't count as "doing away with the Second Amendment." What could you possibly be worried about?!

No one wants to take away your guns.All we want to do is have a strong background check for those wanting to buy a gun.All we want to do is keep assault rifles/weapons of war out of the hands of the crazies.All we want to do is prevent ownership of weapons of war.All we want to do is limit the number of cartridges in a magazine.All we want to do is prevent ownership of automatic (or semi-automatic) weapons.All we want to do is prohibit ownership of high power rifles that can defeat body armor.All we want to do is prohibit easily concealable weapons.All we want to do is prohibit weapons outside the home.All we want to do is prohibit weapons that hold more than 5 rounds.All.... we want to do is to take away your guns.

And, yes, now the more honest on the left are saying eliminate the second Amendment. Think that is for implementation of "sensible" gun laws?

There are upwards of 20 million MSRs at large in he U. S. at this point - and undoubtedly quite a number of those in Connecticut, law or no law. Those wanting to ban or seriously restrict them might just as well turn their sights on banning power lawn mowers and trying to force people to own push models instead.

These fantasies percolate from a belief nexus that imagines that

- people acquire and own firearms under the 2nd Amendment for every purpose other than giving an overreaching government serious pause

- those tasked with enforcing such laws are, to a person, purely liberal like themselves. There are absolutely no MSR-owning law enforcement or judicial personnel anywhere in the U. S. who might simply ignore such laws, choosing to honor their constitutional oaths to their constituencies instead. Or perhaps Daddy will simply step in from over the mountain and out of the sky instead

- people everywhere will ignore federal laws against pot, but never against MSRs, because everyone knows everyone believes pot is good, while everyone believes MSRs are bad, everyone but the 10 evil millionaires who belong to the 2A lobby the NRA

We are living Post constitutional America and have been since Obamacare passed Supreme Court muster. It's just that progressives can't figure out how to start a mass confiscation of firearms without a worse bloodbath than not confiscating them. So they pick at the edges.

"And now, today, we see more evidence that — whatever fans of the Second Amendment may think or hope it means — in court, it doesn't mean very much." Of course, we anti-Progs have long assumed that nothing in these United States "means very much." The 14th has nothing to do with marriage and framers would have abhorred SSM but the unimaginable ends up being a required outcome. The IRS can target conservative groups with impunity -- because. Enforcement of immigration law can be suspended -- because discretion. Congress doesn't allocate money for something admin likes? -- no problem, just shuffle it around. Don't like the 2nd? -- no problem, get a judge to eviscerate it. Everyone in gov must keep records on secure systems -- except the SoS -- because why not? Afghan Muslim Dem kills gays -- so the problem is gun violence and GOP Christian hate. No, nothing means very much.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed ... unless and until some judicial oligarch opines that the infringement is for a cause he agrees with, whether or not the infringement actually serves that cause.

Judicial amendment: "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed unless such infringement is (appears to be) done with good intentions."

Flash: Encouraged by SCOTUS inaction and in keeping with the history of the 2nd Amendment mandate, the Connecticut Legislature has banned all firearms except flintlock weapons.

Trump is a country club guy from Manhattan and Palm Beach. He's not an upland bird hunter like Dick Cheney; or a waterfowler like the late Justice Scalia. Trump is a poseur (or not even!) with guns, like John Kerry.

To some extent, I agree.

BUT. He figured out what people want and is trying to give it to them (Us).

Kerry no more wanted to go to war than Trump did. Kerry, however, figured out a way to stay half way in and in no danger. He got himself assigned to the blue water Navy, in a war that had no blue water Navy combat. It must have looked like an easy two years.

Then he got transferred to the "brown water" Navy and they were shooting at those guys. He figured out a way to get out quickly and no have to desert. Two fake purple hearts later, he was a Congressman.

Trump may not be an expert on guns but he has figured out that trying to fill a role the voters want might be a nice cap on a career.

Walker could have done that but it would cost him the Koch Brothers support.

Carly could have done that but she seems committed to the H1B program

When you are in a fight to the death, as I think we are in this country, you don't look too hard at the guy in the next foxhole.

That's where the assault weapon definition comes in, which wasn't declared unconstitutional while it was in force nationwide.

The Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 did not actually define "assault weapons." It instead listed prohibited features such as telescoping stocks, threaded barrels and detached magazines. I don't know whether the Connecticut law includes a definition.

Then he got transferred to the "brown water" Navy and they were shooting at those guys. He figured out a way to get out quickly and no have to desert. Two fake purple hearts later, he was a Congressman.

As I recall, when Kerry volunteered for Swift Boat duty, they were still being used only to patrol coastal areas. By the time he reported, they had become part of the brown-water navy (he supposedly said at the time "I didn't sign up for this"). And it was three fake Purple Hearts. He ran unsuccessfully for Congress as a returning veteran. It was after his Jane Fonda conversion that he was elected.

"I think this blog post is a bit disingenuous. Unless I am missing something, SCOTUS simply denied cert, which does not provide any insight regarding whether or not this type of legislation would be permitted under the Constitution. The denial of certiorari creates no binding precedent, and the Connecticut ban could still be successfully challenged."

Of course, the denial of cert isn't binding precedent from the Supreme Court, but the Second Circuit decision is binding precedent in the Second Circuit and evidence of how other courts will resolve the issue. Moreover, Heller is binding precedent and it concedes that the right is limited. Where are all the cases applying Heller? Why are there so many convictions for gun crimes tgat have not been overturned?

I have been predicting for a while now that the gun-control crowd would change tactics, and create no-buy lists that are comprehensive and include anyone who might want to buy a gun legally.

And only a moron believes the 4 liberals now on the court will vote in any way to enforce the precedent of Heller. They are simply waiting for a fifth vote to overturn it. Gun rights advocates are foolish for depending on courts in the first place. The reasoning of the 2nd Circuit makes it clear that no court with a majority of liberals will ever use Heller as a basis for overturning any control law, or even executive order.

John Kerry most certainly did want to "go to war" and have "his ticket punched" for his future resume as a politician.And it was his fellow "Swift boaters" who arranged for his third Purple Heart and invoked the "three and out" rule to get him out of their harm's way.

Dr.K's not done with his military service? LOL. The man is in his late 70's. He finished Basic Training and that was the end of his military service. Read his biography on his site. It's easy to trash a Vietnam veteran for Doc K and Donald Trump, for others it's pretty damn reprehensible.

President Jefferson wrote: "On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to to the probable one in which it was passed."; "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms"; "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"; "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." Contemporary revolutionary and Member of the Constitutional Congress Tench Cox wrote: “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Their swords and every other terrible instrument of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People.”; “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms (Tench Cox; Member of The Continental Congress and, later, constitutional scholar and author). [Emphasis added] The authors of the Second Amendment were masters of the English language and most exactly knew what they ment and intendend by the “shall not be infringed” clause of the Second Amendment.

The third purple heart was for shooting himself in the ass, as I understand it.

My memory is that it was from a grenade fragment from one that he probably threw (which is considered friendly fire, and isn't supposed to count). If he had been enlisted, he probably wouldn't have gotten that one, and maybe one other. And, ditto for his metal for bravery. But, he was an officer, so medals were much easier to obtain, no one liked him, or trusted him (he apparently dithered, then was too aggressive), and so they were happy to give him the Purple Hearts, and ship him home 7 months early.

John Kerry most certainly did want to "go to war" and have "his ticket punched" for his future resume as a politician. And it was his fellow "Swift boaters" who arranged for his third Purple Heart and invoked the "three and out" rule to get him out of their harm's way.

Except that he volunteered for Swift Boats at a time when they weren't really involved in combat. That apparently changed about the time he moved over there. So, it probably was supposed to look like he was in Vietnam, but wasn't supposed to be that dangerous.

Thomas Jefferson didn't say some of that, and was quoting others James.

If you want to use Jefferson to prop up your argument, best to quote things he actually said.

This is not found in Jefferson's writings. "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." https://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/strongest-reason-people-retain-right-keep-and-bear-arms-spurious-quotation

Also from https://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/laws-forbid-carrying-armsquotation

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one."

This is not something Jefferson wrote, but rather comes from a passage he included in his "Legal Commonplace Book." The passage is from Cesare Beccaria's Essay on Crimes and Punishments.[1]

--- Google is your friend. Check to see if your founding father really said that before using it as evidence.

The problem with this case is that the Supreme Court is currently split 4-4. If the Justices voted that way, the 2nd Circuit case result would be affirmed for that Circuit, but does not bind any of the other Circuits. Which, coincidentally, what they had before the denial of Cert. Of course, if Trump nominates the next Justice, it is probably 5-4 for reversal, but if Clinton gets to nominate such, the vote is 5-4 to affirm, locking in the result nation wide. My guess is that there weren't four votes to roll the dice on who would win the election.

Isn't it funny how the right to keep a bear a standard small firearm like a semi-auto AR-15 chambered in .223 is not a protected right, notwithstanding the terms if the Second Amendment, but homosexual sodomy IS a Constitutionally-protected right, notwithstanding the fact that it was universally outlawed when the Constitution was written, adopted and amended?

The government ban of 19 assault weapons from 1994 to 2004 was a start. Let's revisit that bit of legislation. In that time people could still buy guns and rifles to kill deer, protect themselves and go to target practice. They just couldn't buy certain semi-automatic weapons.

Hillary Clinton is the most qualified candidate for President in history. There is no Second Amendment to the US Constitution, there has never been a Second Amendment to the Constitution. The transcripts of the Orlando 911 calls show that Islam had nothing to do with the attack or the attacker.

Unknown, Being a contractor that does physicals part time for those entering the military somehow does not compare to being a VIETNAM VETERAN.

No Doc Michael you aren't a hero, you aren't a veteran. Stop bashing Vietnam veterans, unless you want to be called an armchair warrior and compared to Donald Trump bashing John McCain's military service. As I said before, reprehensible.

One can argue that the core, the root, of American exceptionalism in its codified form (as opposed to the culture that caused it to be codified in the first place), IS in large part the Second Amendment, and only to a lesser degree the First.

There are forms of the First amendment in various other countries (though not in all one would assume have such a thing), but nowhere, anywhere, is there an open invitation to revolt and overthrow authority like the Second. The US Constitution is a subversive, revolutionary document, a general invitation to disrespect authority, to distrust it, to defy it, nowhere more so than in that.

A proper resolution to the problems with firearms as a matter of public policy has to address that. If it is to be gotten rid of it has to be replaced, otherwise you aren't the USA but some mishmash of bureaucratic Euros plus Mexico, where the citizens can do no more than hope for the benevolence of the state, and if needs must resist with the usual passive-aggression of the put-upon peasant.

The only proper replacement for the Second amendment, if you want to retain your character, would be something that would so cripple the US Federal government (or State governments for that matter) such that it would not matter. I don't know how you would arrange that.

"I have been predicting for a while now that the gun-control crowd would change tactics, and create no-buy lists that are comprehensive and include anyone who might want to buy a gun legally. "

Yancy- I hadn't thought of that before, but it definitely looks like where they are headed now.The Charleston "loophole" they want closed- where if a background check isn't performed within 3 days then permission defaults to "no".The Feinstein proposal where anyone on the no-fly list or anyone the Attorney General wants to put on the list can be denied a gun.

As if the Attorney General has time to approve individual gun purchases.

The no-fly list, where there's no due process and no known specific criteria.

They are definitely headed the way of erring on the side of denying gun purchases.

Part of the problem with the gun debate is that so much of the framing of the issue is driven by elite members of the media and the political class who possess about a thimble full of knowledge of firearms. Most of them have a completely misconstrued notion of what "semi-automatic" even means. They all seem to be against "assault weapons" while not recognizing that such weapons are defined almost entirely on cosmetics. Obviously mass shootings are horrific, tragic events. But in reality they make up only a tiny fraction of the total gun violence in the country.

Here's a statistic you're not likely to see on the next 60 Minutes gun debate special: black men are about 6.5% of the US population and commit about 50% of the gun homicides in the country.

We live in a country where an 18 year old black male commits strong armed robbery, assaults a police officer, and is killed by the officer in self-defense. Three autopsies and a federal investigation all corroborated this conclusion. The result: the officer has been publicly demonized and had his career ruined; the teenager has a bronze plaque memorial on the spot on the street where he was shot. America is doomed, and Donald J. Trump is the hail mary pass before the clock runs out.

Farmer, I'm quite sure that the true debate, not that going on in the "media", or even what passes for universities; is not only long since settled but is and was well-informed. This all is not a matter of misunderstandings and confusion. The evidence is all around you; this is a policy, a program, a coordinated campaign in a system of similarly coordinated campaigns. The obstacle here is that the general public has proven obstreperous.

Most of the people who write about guns for pay, in the mass media, are writing according to instructions. It does not matter what they know and it doesn't matter if they know nothing at all. It has no bearing on their opinions or arguments, and these people know that much, at least, better than anyone. If they were to write something opposed to the program they would be driven out of their careers.

Farmer, I'm quite sure that the true debate, not that going on in the "media", or even what passes for universities; is not only long since settled but is and was well-informed.

I agree with this; I was just restricting to my comments to how the debate is often framed and presented by the media. I do believe that as far as the public is concerned, the debate is largely settled. In fact, sometime around the late 90's, the Democrats pretty much jettisoned the issue because it was rarely a winning issue with them. George rednecks or Michigan militia weekend warrior or Ted Nugent types always make good fodder for the anti-gun debate, even though these communities are causing next to problems to society with their guns. But it fits the narrative of the evil white, straight, Christian men who are just ruining everything. Never mind that our gun problem is primarily confined to about a dozen urban centers and largely committed by black and Latino faces. Doesn't fit the narrative. These people are victims. How can they be the source of any problem? Everybody knows that any problems they do cause somehow aren't their fault because of what (you guessed it), evil white straight Christian men did to them. I am neither Christian nor straight, so I'm occasionally permitted inside the fold. When I start disagreeing a little too much, they suddenly realize I am still a white male, and therefore not to be totally trusted.

As someone said before, the constitution is just words. Words on paper do nothing if people with the power of coercion decide to ignore the words that were one thought to be the law of the land. It’s hard to for most people to realize that the only thing standing between you and prison if you have an opinion that the Ruling Class doesn’t like is inefficiency. “Respected” academics demand that people who deny man-made global warming be jailed. We’re talking about people who are Ann’s associates. We’re talking about Herr Doktor this and Herr Professor that. And the government is in the hands of their sympathizers. http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/17/scientists-ask-obama-to-prosecute-global-warming-skeptics/

I think I wasn't quite clear, which is typical of me. My apologies. I mean that the "powers that be" have long since decided that the Second Amendment and guns in the hands of the public, especially those with military utility, are especially inconvenient. I don't think they care one bit whether drug dealers kill each other with cheap handguns. Hence the enormous efforts expended on limiting "assault weapons". Acting on this decision has proven difficult because the public is in the way.

Miriam, I'm retired. Before that, I took away everything people owned.

I'll repeat my original question.

What do you do for a living, Miriam?

What is your contribution to the rest of us? Other than your comments here, of course.

It would be uncharitable to assume that you simply popped up here out of nowhere in the last months of this election season solely as a paid Democrat commentbot, but Professor Althouse's blog is well read enough and Hillary Clinton and her PACs have enough money to burn to afford such minimum wage astroturfing for someone otherwise unencumbered.

Repeal the second amendment. Get up for it. C'mon, Hillary. Don't be a whiny, half-assed Bernie wannabe. Go for it. Repeal. We did it to the 18th. Step up to your beliefs! But make your Secret Service detail stand down first.

Miriam/Inga, with her usual lack of logic, has to turn any criticism of Kerry's deplorable war record into "What did YOU do during Vietnam?" as if Dr. K's service record or lack thereof somehow validates Kerry. Dr. K is not a public figure. I don't recall the media restraining themselves from criticizing McCain's war record during the '08 campaign - in fact, I recall that he was mocked for having lost full use of his arms. I'm sure Inga enjoyed those jokes.

What is amusing is how Inga feels the need to rush to the defense of ANY Dem politician, like a mother hen protecting her chicks. Except they are not cute, fuzzy chicks, but corrupt and evil people who would toss her to the sharks in a second if it would gain them votes or influence.

Miriam (מִרְיָם, Miryam—"wished for child," "bitter") was the sister of Moses and Aaron, and the daughter of Amram and Jochebed. Her story is told in the books of Exodus and Numbers in the Hebrew Bible. Ah.

And, I'm sorry but being a VIETNAM VETERAN ((unlike Slick Willie) does not automatically mean that one's service was honorable or exempt it from criticism (which is why VIETNAM VETERANS voted against Kerry in '04.)

Once again, Inga wraps her hypocritical, lying ass in the flag when it suits her to do so, although I don't notice her defending it when La Raza scum burn it at Trump rallies.

LOL, Miriam/Inga doesn't speak of it because she gave out waaaaaay too personal information when she was using her real first name.

She's changed her nic 5 or 6 times here but is easily recognized by her brainless squawking, her confused arguments, her great love of Dem sleazebags, her utter lack of self-awareness, and the virtual tongue baths she will give to any male leftist commenters who notice her.

Right after Ann (God luv ya) announced she was going to bring new voices to her blog, Amanda (you remember her) appeared. Obviously one of Ann's students, she fizzled out right quick, that one did. (or was that Inga back on her meds for the duration of Amanda?) It is all so confusing...

Miriam, disclosing an occupation - how your contribution to society measures against Dr. K's - doesn't personally identify you as a target. Your answer is, once again, not one.

Did/do you contribute more to the rest of our well being than did/does Dr. K, or do you contribute less? That is, what is your occupational moral standing relative to judge Dr. K from which you judge him?

If you are nothing more than what you appear to be, a transient, election-season blog troll, your standing is not very high, I'm afraid.

To elaborate on your evasive, non-answer question response to my question, I ruined people who took economic and other advantage of my clients, making my clients whole or as near to whole as possible in the process.

I am so past being tired of the whores and sons of whores who look at the polymer stock pieces and the black color and think "Guns of Vietnam" and go crap their panties. Looks dangerous, so must be e-e-e-e-vil. A Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle chambers the same round as the AR-15, has the same detachable magazine as the AR-15, and is also semi-automatic, but it has a wooden stock so it's not e-e-e-e-vil, or so I infer. Grow up, children. It's a dangerous world out there and if you don't want to live in it then I suggest you go kill yourself. Can't help but improve the gene pool.

Just don't use a gun to do the deed. Filthy, slime-eating maggots like you don't deserve to touch a firearm.

Every Monday, several right wing blogs report on the number of shootings and murders that occurred in Chicago over the weekend. Here's a website that attempts to catalog all of the shootings and murders in Chicago - truly disturbing numbers. As bad as these numbers are, they don't seem to concern this administration or the Democrat party much at all. However, veterans being able to buy an AR-15 is a huge concern.

Handguns in the hands of thugs and gang members, happy to kill and maim in ridiculous numbers, aren't a threat to this administration, whereas veterans trained in how to shoot an "assault rifle" might very well pose a threat some day. Hence, the push to outlaw "assault rifles" with no mention of handguns.

This "assault weapons ban" push isn't about public safety. This is about Democrat politician's safety.

"I mean that the "powers that be" have long since decided that the Second Amendment and guns in the hands of the public, especially those with military utility, are especially inconvenient."

Thank you for the clarification; I had indeed misconstrued your earlier post. That said, I disagree with your clarified position as well. I do not think the "powers that be" really care one way or another, and I don't think I've seen much evidence that they consider weapons in the hands of the public a direct threat to either themselves or their interests. The Republican Party has made protection of gun rights a central component of their platform, while still remaining comfortably within the good graces of the "powers that be."

I don't see the anti-gun crowd much different from general progressive nanny-statism tendencies. It's part and parcel of the larger progressive myth that there are legislative/regulatory solutions to all human social ills. We don't have a "gun" problem in the United States; we have a violence problem. And oddly, while progressive are often quick to point out the abject failures of the drug war, they see no contradiction in believing that a legal ban on guns will get rid of guns.

Somewhat of an addition to my previous post about the politics of the case. The 9th Circuit recently followed the 2nd Circuit in ignoring the intent of the Heller and McDonald decisions. Both Circuits essentially eviscerate the requirement for increased scrutiny by, essentially, redefine that to mean a scintilla above a rational basis standard. The other Circuits that have heard these cases seem to have adopted a standard that varies between intermediate and strict scrutiny, depending on how close the question is to the center of the 2nd Amdt (I wouldn't be surprised if the DC Circuit, expanded and stacked by Obama nominees to bolster ObamaCare ended up following the 2nd and 9th Circuits). Point though is that there may be a Cert Petition from the 9th Circuit decision coming up fairly soon, and that may be another reason that they skipped on the 2nd Circuit case. Still, it is worrisome that the Circuits that need to reform gun laws the most are the most resistant to it. I am thinking in particular of CA in the 9th and NY in the 2nd (and maybe, DC in the DC Circuit).

"I don't see the anti-gun crowd much different from general progressive nanny-statism tendencies."

To a degree, thats true. On the other hand there seems to be a program of deliberate demoralization in action, attacking every symbolic point valued by the traditional public who aren't, yet, clients of the system. The Second Amendment is, among other things, in normal times, largely symbolic. Very many political struggle of recent years (bathrooms for instance) are symbolic fights for a real purpose, which is to demoralize opponents, to show that they are unable to protect themselves against overwhelming power, and thus shouldn't try.

" It's part and parcel of the larger progressive myth that there are legislative/regulatory solutions to all human social ills."

I am also convinced that these myths are not in play. There is no hoped for positive outcome, no alleviation of ills. The true purpose is simple pursuit of power, tribal or class war, the aristos vs the bourgeois.

Blogger Rhythm and Balls said...Awwwww. I've picked up another stalker.

How cute.

6/20/16, 8:09 PM

At least I've cut down on your insane rants, somewhat for now. Or are you going to shoot up and grace us with your witty all-knowing all-seeing macroscopic predictions of Life Under Progressivism? Must be tough being a Pedro.

Have you sought out and seen a psychiatrist for you problem, Jon? People are allowed to hold easily defensible views different from your own - especially since yours are so stupid. If that causes obsessive fixations for you, it might be a good idea to seek professional help.

"The true purpose is simple pursuit of power, tribal or class war, the aristos vs the bourgeois."

I never find arguments along these lines particularly useful. It's really just a convoluted form of the ad hominem fallacy. You are attacking their motives. Who cares? Even if their arguments were motived by purely sociopathic self-interest, it would make absolutely no difference to the validity of their argument. You are making the same exact mistake that the SJW crowd makes: they've somehow come to believe that by calling something racist, misogyist, homophobic, etc., they've won some kind of argument. Even if you conceded that a person were purely motivated by those forces, it's completely irrelevant to the argument they are making.

Strange how everyone complains about how politically divisive our country has become while simultaneously ignoring the obvious cause: we're as diverse as ever!

At least Michael K's noting of his full military service ran off Inga / Annie / Amanda / Miriam for a while. Interesting that revealing her profession would out her to the 'unstable' commenters here -- I'll just assume she's the lead guitarist for Aerosmith.

Farmer, Their motives are important, more important than anything else really, from the point of view of knowing your enemy. Once known, you understand him. We are dealing in politics, there is no question of valid or invalid arguments, merely useful and not useful. There is no good faith here. They call names, for instance, not because they want to start a conversation, or convert the heathen, but as a tactic, effective or not.It has something to do with diversity, but I dont think its the sort you have in mind.

Bill Clinton got an "assault weapons" ban enacted which had zero effect on crime or shootings.

Of course, Michael, that bit of "zero effect" legislation had the blessing of one Donald Trump.

Did you see Trump on Fox with Bill O'Reilly? Neither one of them knew the first thing about guns. O'Reilly asked a couple of surprisingly good questions of Trump. (Amid mostly lame softballs.) One question was about Trump's position on guns for people in the terrorist watch list. Trump's answer was to deflect and dodge, starting first with his endorsement from the NRA (not relevant) and ending with how he wants to discuss the issue with the NRA. Translation; "Bill, I need the NRA to tell me what to say about this."

At one point, Trump was talking about "the big guns" like what "the maniac" in Orlando had. What in the world is a "big gun"? Have you ever heard anybody talk about a big gun? What exactly is "big" about an AR-15? Big caliber? No. Big-grain bullet? No; at least not .223. Big magazines? I have never heard large-cap magazines referred to in terms of "big guns." Does "big gun" mean a rifle? Are all rifles (the least-used firearms in all of crime) "big guns"?

Earlier today I was pointing out what an ignoramus Trump was on guns. I only had to wait a few hours to have Trump himself prove me right on national television.

The question I'd ask for all the folks who want to end the individual right to keep and bear arms -- how many people are you willing to confiscate the 3 million AR-15 or the 300 million total firearms in the United States. I mean, I'm pretty moderate about most things but I'm not turning in my guns. My guess is that there is a large number of firearm owners who are a far more committed than I am.

They should also remember that we cannot POSSIBLY deport 11M illegals.

But taking 300M guns is doable? Or 3M AR-15's?

The government ban of 19 assault weapons from 1994 to 2004 was a start. Let's revisit that bit of legislation. In that time people could still buy guns and rifles to kill deer, protect themselves and go to target practice. They just couldn't buy certain semi-automatic weapons.

It also did no good.

Why don't we try to enforce the laws we have instead of adding more laws we won't enforce?

It would be nice if 10% of the people who write about guns knew what "semiautomatic" means. It means all of the handguns, and most of the long guns.

I loved that a reporter was going to do a piece on how easy it was to buy guns...except his gun request was denied.http://www.dailywire.com/news/6736/sun-times-reporter-tries-buy-ar-15-show-how-easy-aaron-bandler

Also like that a gun shop owner reported a reporter for making a straw purchase. She won't be punished --- because gun control or something.

Until we see reporters arrested fro violating gun laws, I see no point in adding more gun laws.

If I ran for Governor of my state, we'd become a sanctuary state for guns.

Truely a very good article on how to handle the future technology. After reading your post,thanks for taking the time to discuss this, I feel happy about and I love learning more about this topic. keep sharing your information regularly for my future reference. This content creates a new hope and inspiration with in me. Thanks for sharing article like this. The way you have stated everything above is quite awesome. Keep blogging like this. Thanks.Android training in chennai

Alright, I might have missed the boat on this thread, but I'll respond to HoodlumDoodlum and Ms. Althouse anyway...

"Of course, the denial of cert isn't binding precedent from the Supreme Court, but the Second Circuit decision is binding precedent in the Second Circuit and evidence of how other courts will resolve the issue. Moreover, Heller is binding precedent and it concedes that the right is limited. Where are all the cases applying Heller? Why are there so many convictions for gun crimes tgat [sic] have not been overturned?"

Right, the Second Circuit decision is now binding precedent in the Second Circuit, at least until SCOTUS decides to weigh in. But how is this any different from the Court granting cert and then (likely) reaching a 4-4 split? It's possible, but definitely not guaranteed, that another justice would be sworn in before the case comes up for oral argument. The only thing that we know from the decision is that there were not four justices who wanted to review it at this time.

With respect to your comment about Heller, there actually have been a few cases over the last few years that have struck down bans/restrictions based on Heller and Macdonald (the case that actually incorporated the 2A with respect to states). One case that comes to mind is Moore v. Madigan, in which the Seventh Circuit required Illinois to provide some type of concealed carry system (which it did, after years of being the only state not to allow concealed carry in any form).

Your question about overturning convictions for gun crimes seems like a red herring - most people are typically not convicted simply for possession, unless they were not supposed to have it in the first place (e.g., a felon). But I wouldn't expect many convictions of gun crimes to be overturned, unless it involved an issue of self-defense.